Back
2007 Supreme(P&H) 2208
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.N.Jindal, J.
Sona Devi
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 50274 of 2006,
Decided On : DECEMBER 19, 2007
Revenue Law--Misappropriation of Panchayat Funds--Misapplication of Gram Fund-- Section 53 of the Act defines only a procedure for effecting the recovery of the amount of loss caused by the Panch or Sarpanch, but it does not put an embargo on the State to initiate criminal action in case of misappropriation of the Panchayat funds.
Headnote:(A) Words and Phrases--Expression Misapplication-- The word "misapplication" literally means a wrong or incorrect application and there can be a perfectly innocent application--Companies Act, 1956, Section 543. (Para 8)
(B) Revenue Law--Criminal Law--Misappropriation of Panchayat Funds--Misapplication of Gram Fund-- Section 53 of the Act defines only a procedure for effecting the recovery of the amount of loss caused by the Panch or Sarpanch, but it does not put an embargo on the State to initiate criminal action in case of misappropriation of the Panchayat funds--Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Section 53--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 409, 420. (Para 9)
(C) Criminal Law--Quashing of FIR--Inherent jurisdiction--Embezzlement of Panchayat Fund--The Court can invoke the provisions only in rare case, where from the very facts on the face of it, no case for prosecution is made out--Petition dismissed--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482. (Para 11)
(D) Revenue Law--Criminal Law--Quashing of FIR--Embezzlement of Panchayat Fund--The act of embezzlement can not, in any way, be termed as an act "done in good faith or the act done under this Act." As such, it would be suffice to say that no bar has been created by Section 204 of the Act, for registration of the case, against the petitioner, who intentionally and fraudulently, in order to cause benefit to herself by causing loss to the Government, embezzled an amount--Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Section 53 & 204--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 409 and 420. (Para 10)
(F) Criminal Law--Expression Misconduct--Intentionally and fraudulently--Explained--Held; Interalia-
(i) The neglect and misconduct are not para-materia with the words "intentionally" and "fraudulently" used in the Indian Penal Code.
(ii) The word "misconduct" is a relative term and has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term "occurs" having regard to the scope of the Act or Statute which is being construed.
(iii) "Misconduct" literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 409 & 420. (Para 7)
A.N.Jindal, J.
1. The petitioner Sona Devi, Ex-Sarpanch, resident of village Sudhour, has invoked the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 155 dated 17.05.2006 under Sections 409, 420 IPC, registered against her at Police Station Shahbad, Distt. Kurukshetra (Annexure P6). The allegations as laid down in FIR are that Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Shahbad (Kurukshetra), forwarded a letter No. 4217 dated 17.05.2006 to SHO, Police Station, Shahbad, for registration of the case against the petitioner, on the allegations that during tenure of the petitioner as Sarpanch i.e. w.e.f. Year 2002 to 2005, the grant was given to Development Samiti Sudhour. When the assessment was made, then it came out that the petitioner had embezzled a sum of Rs. 2,19,958/-. Before registration of the case, letter was written by Block Development to the Deputy Commissioner on 21.04.2006, wherein, he pointed out that the following grants were given to Gram Panchayat Vikas Samiti, Sudhour :-
1. For construction of streets : Rs. 204944.00
2. For construction of boundary wall of school : Rs. 210877.00
3. Retaining Wall : Rs. 482573.00
4. For construction of Drain (PRI) : Rs. 32708.00
He further reported that, on the assessment, difference has been found. The evaluation of Rs. 3,96,000/- for C.C. Street construction, was done and as per evaluation a sum of Rs. 2,04,994/- has been spent on this work and a sum of Rs.191066/- has been embezzled by the petitioner. He further observed that a sum of Rs. 2,16,810/- was received for the construction of boundary wall of the school, out of which only Rs. 2,10,877/- were spent. Out of a sum of Rs. 4,95000/- received for the purpose of retaining wall, amount of Rs. 4,82,573/- was spent. Out of a sum of Rs. 43,300/- received under the PRI Scheme. Only a sum of Rs. 32,708/- was found to be spent. Thus, she embezzled a sum of Rs. 2,19,958/-. In nutshell, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Shahbad, vide his letter No. 3995 dated 21.04.2006 informed the Deputy Commissioner, regarding the misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 2,19,958/-, by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, vide his letter No. 1640/Panchayat dated 11.05.2006, directed the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Shahbad to first issue notice regarding the recovery of the embezzled amount, and in case, the reply is not found satisfactory, the case be registered. In pursuance of the said letter, the Block development and Panchayat Officer issued a letter dated 17.05.2006, directing the petitioner to make good the loss of the embezzled amount, but neither any explanation was submitted nor the said amount was deposited. Therefore, the FIR in question has been got registered against her on the grounds that in view of Sections 53 and 204 of the Haryana Gram Panchayat Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), no case is made out against her.
2. Against the quashing petition, the State has filed reply submitting that the case was registered against the petitioner, after complying with due formalities. Petitioner is guilty of the offence under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC. From the bare allegations in the FIR, the aforesaid offences are constituted. Provisions of Section 53 and Section 204 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, are not applicable to the instant case. The provisions of Section 53 of the act are applicable only in case of loss, waste or miss application of Gram Fund, if the same is inconsequence of neglect or misconduct. Similarly, Section 204 is applicable only in case of an act done in good faith under the Act.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The main contentions, over which, the petitioner banks upon, for quashing the FIR, are that the provisions of Sections 53 and 204 are applicable in the instant case, therefore, no prosecution against the petitioner could be launched, but only recovery could be effected from him by having recourse to the other provisions of law.
5. It is not in dispute tha
